Woman Forced Out Of Matrimonial Home Can Initiate DV Case From Shelter; Economic Abuse Creates Continuing Cause Of Action: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that a woman who takes refuge in a rented accommodation after being driven out of her matrimonial home can invoke the jurisdiction of the court within whose limits she is temporarily residing, and that continuing economic deprivation by the husband constitutes a recurring cause of action under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Setting aside a Sessions Court order that had returned the wife's complaint on territorial grounds, the Court emphasised that the DV Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally to advance remedies for aggrieved women rather than defeated on technicalities.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while allowing the criminal revision filed by the wife, observed that “temporary residence” under Section 27 of the DV Act includes a place where an aggrieved woman is compelled to stay for safety after domestic violence. The Court underlined that such residence cannot be dismissed as a mere “fleeing address” simply because it is not permanent or because certain documents were issued later.

The petitioner-wife had alleged that after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, dowry demands and neglect, and was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her minor child. She thereafter shifted to a rented accommodation within the Taltala area of Kolkata and initiated proceedings under Section 498A IPC as well as an application under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protection, residence and monetary reliefs. In support of her stay, she relied on documents including her Aadhaar card, leave and licence agreement, residence certificate, and proof of service of court notices at the Kolkata address.

The Magistrate accepted that she was residing within the local jurisdiction and held the complaint maintainable. However, the Sessions Court, on appeal by the husband, reversed the finding and directed that the application be returned for presentation before a court in Purba Medinipur, treating her Kolkata address as insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the wife approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Addressing a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, the High Court held that although proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are predominantly civil in nature, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can still be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. An order returning a complaint affects substantive rights and cannot be termed purely interlocutory, the Court said, thereby holding the revision to be maintainable.

On merits, the Court examined Section 27 of the DV Act, which permits filing of proceedings where the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides, or where the cause of action arises. It observed that a temporary dwelling adopted out of compulsion after domestic violence squarely falls within the statute. The Court further noted that official communications and court notices had in fact been served on the petitioner at the Kolkata address, indicating that it was her continuing place of residence.

Importantly, the Court also held that denial of financial support and maintenance amounts to “economic abuse” under Section 3 of the DV Act and constitutes a continuing wrong. Such deprivation gives rise to a recurring cause of action from day to day, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the court where the aggrieved woman resides and suffers the consequences of that abuse.

Holding that the Sessions Court had adopted an overly technical approach and virtually conducted a mini-trial on jurisdiction, the High Court termed the impugned order perverse and contrary to the object of the DV Act. Consequently, it set aside the appellate order, restored the Magistrate's decision upholding jurisdiction, and directed that the domestic violence proceedings continue before the Kolkata court.

The ruling reinforces that courts must adopt a victim-centric approach in domestic violence cases and ensure that procedural objections do not obstruct substantive reliefs available to women seeking protection under the law.

Case: Rani Bibi Vs. Sk. Nurullah & Ors.

Case No: CRR 3472 of 2022

Click here to read order